2012 Presidential election thread

[V.V.V.V.V.]

The only difference is who is doing the demanding. They are both coercive, and therefore, wrong. It's amazing all the reprehensible shit that is done that people turn a blind eye to, or even cheer, merely due to a title, badge, or uniform.

Taxes aren't coercive. You live in the society so you agree to the rules. You make an agreement just by living here. There is no "coercion." You willingly buy into the system by being in the place the system exists. wtf

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

In a fully free society taxation or payment for governmental services would be voluntary. Since the proper services of the government (police,armed forces,the courts) are demonstrably needed by individual citizens and affect their interests directly, the citizens would and should be willing to pay for such services as they pay for insurance.

Consequently, the principle of voluntary government financing regards the government as the servant, not the ruler of citizens - as an agent who must be paid for it's services not as a benefactor whose services are gratuitous, who dispenses something for nothing.

 

[Draehl]

Offer a viable alternative. Where can I go live and work and not pay taxes? If there is no alternative it's coercion. If not any individual government then at least collectively we are coerced to pay taxes.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

I don't think morality should have anything to do with it.

You don't think that actions and judgments have anything to do with an economic and social system?

 

[Cronopio]

Why not a democratic president and a republican vice, or vice versa?

 

[Dak]

Taxes aren't coercive. You live in the society so you agree to the rules. You make an agreement just by living here. There is no "coercion." You willingly buy into the system by being in the place the system exists. wtf

Offer a viable alternative. Where can I go live and work and not pay taxes? If there is no alternative it's coercion. If not any individual government then at least collectively we are coerced to pay taxes.

This.

I actually am working on a long term plan to exit the United States for a less tyrannical state, and ironically, as I searched for places in the world where I could be free from Western imperialism or Chinese/Russian influence, I was left a very short list of countries where the US wasn't either sending in the troops or the spooks to bring them to heel.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I'm kinda interested in where you'd go.

 

[Dak]

So far every time I delve into a country I have been interested in, the likelyhood of UN/US involvement (by involvement I mean a patsy government or else) is high. "Don't drone-bomb me bro".

 

[Einherjar86]

You don't think that actions and judgments have anything to do with an economic and social system?

I think they do; I just don't think that morality is the correct term. If by "morality" we mean making judgments that somehow function to benefit the majority, then that isn't necessarily "moral"; rather, it's making practical/rational decisions based on people's needs.

Capitalism shouldn't be judged by its apparently moral qualities, because this establishes it as a system that should be fought for and preserved due to its objectively superior characteristics. The moral ideals of our society might be consistent with a capitalist system (a suggestion that is up for debate), but these ideals are not universal.

All I meant by ignoring morality is that we shouldn't fall prey to the notion that capitalism is objectively the most moral system and should thus be supported and sustained at all costs. It's perfectly plausible that one-thousand years from now, a new system might emerge that will embody the moral ideals of its age.

 

[Draehl]

I agree on the morality not mattering. Capitalism is a better system as it harnesses our natural tendencies. There just have to be a few select socialistic safeguards to keep it from getting out of control. The FDA, antitrust/general legislative oversight, SEC, etc. On these matters one could argue there needs to be more government involvement. But on matters of having an excessively large expeditionary force, foreign aid, excessive/abused welfare, federal funding of local projects. Leave it at the door.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

The morality of capitalism does not lie in the claim that it represents the best way to achieve “the common good.” It is true that capitalism does (if that catch-phrase has any meaning) but this is merely a secondary consequence. The moral justification of capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system suitable with man’s rational nature, that it protects man’s survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is justice.

This does not represent today's leftist collectivist "democracy"; I'm talking about a true constitutionally limited republic.

 

[Einherjar86]

But morality by definition isn't "rational." Morality is constant, whereas rationality can change due to the circumstances.

 

[Matt]

Totally bro, because nothing good happens without the government making it happen. What was I thinking?

I doubt it would. The rich are greedy and cold, and the middle class is shrinking, so who will help them? Take away anti-poverty aid and thousands, possibly millions, of people will become homeless/starve.

No, it is a tax, and the money is spent as it comes in. Also, there are people drawing Social Security who never paid in. It isn't a "retirement fund". It is a reappropriations tax, that with broader eligibility. The money that is paid in has no chance to be better invested. It is taken through coercion, squandered by beaurocracy, and then some of the elderly and a bunch of lazy people get a small check cut to them. So wonderful.

The number of people that payed into vastly outnumbers the amount of people that didn't pay into it and still receive payments. You are correct that politicians have basically ruined the system, but it doesn't negatively impact society.

Law =/= tax(theft)funded beaurocratic government.

So how will you fund a government, then? Without taxes, government can't function.

 

[Matt]

In a fully free society taxation or payment for governmental services would be voluntary. Since the proper services of the government (police,armed forces,the courts) are demonstrably needed by individual citizens and affect their interests directly, the citizens would and should be willing to pay for such services as they pay for insurance.

Anarchy would ensue. The thought of this is laughable.

 

[Cronopio]

Please refrain from trying to include morals in a discussion concerning politics. Thank you.

 

[zerostatic]

I actually am working on a long term plan to exit the United States for a less tyrannical state, and ironically, as I searched for places in the world where I could be free from Western imperialism or Chinese/Russian influence, I was left a very short list of countries where the US wasn't either sending in the troops or the spooks to bring them to heel.

In the past year I have given some thought to exiting the U.S. My reasons have less to do with alleged government tyranny and more to do with the decline of American society and culture combined with the negative effects of illegal immigration.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

But morality by definition isn't "rational." Morality is constant, whereas rationality can change due to the circumstances.

WAT Morality is a code of values to guide mans choices and actions. The choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life.

That's rationality. Some times I think you try thinking so abstractly you end up talking out of your ass.

 

[MasterOLightning]

Please refrain from trying to include morals in a discussion concerning politics. Thank you.

Sarcastic? There's this big part of politics called social policy, and that entirely has to do with morals.

Also, I worked for the Social Security Administration for a while, so I think I have a fair claim to saying I know how it works. The payments one receives as a retiree are entirely determined by lifetime earnings and taxes paid. Someone who did not pay much into the system would not expect much of a benefit. While disability fraud and Medicare fraud are significant issues, there is a tiny, tiny instance of retirees and survivors cheating Social Security. So few that the administrative costs of cracking down on that would be prohibitive. However, I do think that disability fraud is of rather serious concern. Still, the costs of extremely strict enforcement would both cost the US government a lot, and result in a lot of ill will from people who are actually disabled and will have to go through hell to get their benefits. Of course, with the budget system as it is, it's probably just going to get easier to cheat Medicare and SSA disability.

 

[Matt]

Disability fraud is a huge problem. I've got several friends exploiting it right now.

 

[Cythraul]

Oh man, this thread has gotten lovely.

So you'd rather just let poor people die from hunger in the streets?

Do you have any evidence that this would actually happen?

In any case, I think welfare is fine if it's designed well (that is to say, the more that it tracks the deserving/undeserving distinction, the better it is.)

those aren't the same. if you think they are it's probably because you just suck at comprehending things.

Yep

Why the fuck do most Americans worship capitalism so much anyway?

I don't know about other people, but I "worship" capitalism (and this doesn't mean completely unfettered capitalism) partly because it's the most reliable way of eliminating poverty. If you don't understand this, you're economically illiterate.

They are both coercive, and therefore, wrong.

That's not really your view, is it? If somebody tries to kill me and I use coercion against them in order to make them stop, do I act wrongly?

Taxes aren't coercive. You live in the society so you agree to the rules. You make an agreement just by living here. There is no "coercion." You willingly buy into the system by being in the place the system exists. wtf

I don't think the impossibility of exit is a necessary condition for something to be coercive. How is it that I agree to what the government does simply by being there? If somebody is in my house and says "I am going to stab you" do I agree to getting stabbed simply by remaining in my house? Suppose that I even physically defend myself. Am I consenting to being stabbed? If I get stabbed am I not coerced in this case? That sounds like quite a stretch to me. No, what's happening there looks more like I am staying in my house and not consenting to being stabbed. The alternative is to posit some form of consent that is extremely difficult to make sense of.

The rich are greedy and cold

Once again, proof that you are a fucking ideologue.